Debates of Jan. 29th, 2002

The Budget

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to take part in the debate on the budget. As members can hear from my voice, I am not feeling well. The misplaced priorities of the government have made me sick.

Budget is just another word for financial plan. When I say this is a non-budget what I am really saying is that the government has no plan for the country's finances. Its priorities have been totally misplaced. It would rather give the heritage minister $160 million for cultural programming than buy appropriate uniforms for our troops in Afghanistan, increase transfer payments to the provinces for health care or set its priorities right.

I do not know how the government can say it has responded to the needs of Canadians when an overwhelming majority say health care is the number one issue. The recent increase--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I need to know if he is splitting his time. It has to be on the record. There have been certain members who have forgotten to mention that they are splitting their 20 minutes. Is the hon. member splitting his 20 minutes?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Edmonton--Strathcona.

The priorities of the government have been completely misplaced and this is what I have been talking about. Health care has been the number one issue and we do not see any improvement in it. Recent increases did not even come close to restoring health care funding to where it was before the Liberals came to power in 1993.

There is no contradiction between being fiscally prudent and increasing funding to priority areas like the armed forces, the RCMP, CSIS, health care and so on. However it can only be done if wasteful spending is eliminated.

As it stands now, none of these vital institutions had their funding increased to 1993 levels. The solicitor general did not mention that the recent increases do not even begin to make up for the damages to these organization which have been caused by the government since it took charge in 1993.

The Liberals are like arsonists who set fire to a building and then join others to douse the flames with a bucket of water, but they hide the fact that they set the fire in the first place. They caused the problem in the first place. They are the root cause of the problem, particularly in health care. How can we call them the saviours?

Another example of where the government has fallen short is in transportation infrastructure programs. The government rakes in about $4.3 billion from gasoline taxes and invests only less than 4% in transportation and infrastructure programs. In contrast, the United States of America invests 95% of the revenue generated from gasoline taxes on transportation and infrastructure programs.

The condition of our freeways and roads is bad. The Liberals have included $2 billion for the strategic infrastructure program, but the word strategic sounds a little suspicious to me. Based on the track record of the government, it probably means that the money will be used for political purposes to win strategic ridings. There will be no fair allocation of this funding based on the needs in various provinces and constituencies.

I have been to a few countries in the recent past. The leaders of these countries, such as Hong Kong and China, realize that transportation infrastructure is vital to their continued economic well-being. They make spending in this area a top priority. We do not see that in Canada.

The Liberals talk about trade promotion, but in practice they do not make significant enough investments to ensure Canada's place as a truly global player.

One reason behind the misplaced priorities of the budget is probably the political ambitions of certain ministers of the crown. The underground leadership race to succeed the Prime Minister is nothing new. Some people have said that departmental budget allocations are a good way of telling which ministers are favoured by the Prime Minister. Obviously our former industry minister saw the shortfall in funding for his broadband “hinternet” scheme to be a signal that he did not have the support of the Prime Minister for his leadership ambitions, and he quit.

Due to the wrong priorities of this government, many doctors, nurses, teachers and computer engineers are moving south to the United States of America where job opportunities are more and taxes are lower. That is brain drain, but we do not have as much brain gain in this country.

Any government truly committed to immigrants and economic growth would realize that recognizing foreign credentials is vital to our ability to attract world class talent from abroad. In this budget another missed opportunity is in the area of recognizing foreign credentials. Even though I lobbied for and raised the issue, the government mentioned only one line in the last throne speech. However it has done nothing to implement what it said in the throne speech. Why would a computer engineers or a scientists from abroad bring their skills to Canada if their credentials are not recognized once they get here?

I had a motion in the House some time ago but the government did not support it. I wanted a nationalized system to standardize education within the country and use that standard to recognize foreign credentials. In the U.S.A. if people apply for recognition of their credentials it takes less than 24 hours. It takes more than three months in Canada. We are again missing an opportunity to turn the brain drain into a brain gain.

Bill C-11 shows quite well the attitude of the government toward security. The government tabled a bill before September 11 and then tried to say that it met security needs after adding some ridiculous regulations.

Under the new point system of the Liberals, independent immigrants are penalized, meaning it will be harder for them to come to this country and contribute their skills to the country's economic welfare.

Also, the government is allowing Canada's reputation to slip by refusing to invest in our military and foreign missions, which is the first line of defence. This is shameful for a G-8 country.

Statehood means a country must be able to defend itself and make a contribution to the international community. There have been many allegations of corruption in foreign missions. The locally hired employees accept bribes and allow unscrupulous people through the system to come to Canada. Nothing has been done to address that issue.

One way the government could honour our country's historical record in the area of foreign affairs would be to shift its foreign policy focus toward preventive diplomacy. At one time Canada used to enjoy the reputation of a leading country in preventive diplomacy. Now we have slipped way beyond many countries like Bangladesh and even smaller countries like Nepal. The priorities of the government are wrong. It has given Canada a black eye.

Again, this would involve shifting resources from low priority areas, such as corporate welfare for Liberal supporters, to high priority areas such as deeper tax cuts, security, larger payments to the provinces for health care and paying down our debt which is the root cause for the low loonie. This would require the government to re-examine its strategy, something it has been unwilling to do.

The Liberals claim their budget is about security, but security only works when there are no gaps in the fence. One gapping hole I have brought to the attention of the government many times is the problem of corruption of our foreign missions, as I mentioned earlier. The government has done nothing to patch the big hole of corruption in foreign missions. More often they involve locally engaged staff and nothing has been done to deal with that issue.

According to the government, current economic uncertainties are causing problems for governments around the world. However other governments are making investments to mediate and prevent any conflicts so that there is not too much expense to deal with the damages caused later on.

My province of British Columbia has been completely ignored by the government. There are many issues which have been ignored in British Columbia which I will talk about at some other time.

In conclusion, the priorities of the government are wrong. It has not significantly reduced taxes. It has not paid anything significant on the debt. Those priorities should have been first so we could have made a better country for all of us.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing out many of the shortcomings in the most recent budget. On a number of points I find it easy to agree with him.

He mentioned many of the government cutbacks since the Liberal government took over in 1993 and that we had not even really caught up in terms of government spending. I think he was speaking specifically of the Canada health and social transfer, money which is transferred to the provinces. With modest increases in the current budget and over the last year or so we have not even reached the level of spending that we were at in 1993 when the Canadian people kicked out the Tory government in the hope and optimism that a Liberal government would listen to their plea and to their needs.

I would like to ask the hon. member about one issue that I am sure affects his riding as much as it affects mine. That is the fact that in low income ridings, especially like in the inner cities of Edmonton or Winnipeg, a great number of senior citizens are actually the poorest people in the population. Senior citizens, especially senior women living alone, statistically are of the lowest of the low income people. We have now learned that many of these people are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement but are not in receipt of it. Many have never applied for it.

It is our contention that the government, in the interests of addressing this segment of the population which is serious in need, should automatically grant the guaranteed income supplement to the these people as soon as they learn that the person is eligible by virtue of their income tax return, and that it should be retroactive.

Would the hon. member agree that, in the interests of helping people meet their basic needs in this era of cutbacks in federal government spending, the guaranteed income supplement should automatically be given to eligible seniors as soon as the federal government is made aware that such eligibility exists?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is an issue which is bothering many of the seniors in almost every constituency. Senior citizens live on fixed incomes. The GIS is one tool which can facilitate their standard of living.

A few days ago I attended a seminar organized by Surrey's Social Futures. It highlighted some of the problems seniors are facing in various communities. The federal priorities of the government are not right. It should set its priorities so it takes care of special groups such as seniors who are living on fixed incomes. Issues such as RRSP, CPP and GIS need to be reformed and priorized.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Surrey Central made some pretty serious allegations. I think it had to do with corruption or bribery in our missions abroad. I think that was the general thrust of what he had to say. Does he have any evidence of that. Have people talked to him about this type of activity? I am sure if they had he would have forwarded that information to the relevant authorities.

Is he aware of a study or are there individual cases? Would he want to table the evidence of a very serious allegation that he has put forward in the House today?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, there have been so many serious allegations. The Department of Foreign Affairs is continuing with 36 inquiries involving corruption in various foreign missions abroad.

In Hong Kong a few years ago 766 computer files were deleted from the CAIPS system, Canada's computer aided immigration processing System. These files pertained to organized criminals, probably terrorists, who were unscrupulously trying to come to Canada. Also, 2,200 blank visa forms were stolen from Hong Kong at one period of time.

There was a lengthy report written by a former whistleblowers and a former employee of the immigration department, called “Sidewinder”. Due to political pressure, that report was completely abandoned, put on a shelf, destroyed or shredded.

There are so many allegations. In Morocco a few years ago there was some corruption. Also, in California money was stolen from the consulate. A series of issues relate to corruption within foreign affairs.

Finally, I raised this issue with the immigration minister the last time. She sent an RCMP team to New Delhi and Islamabad. Based on the information I provided, three locally hired employees in Islamabad and four in New Delhi were fired.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Surrey Central on an excellent speech and an excellent response to the question he threw back in the face of the Liberal member on the other side. I was happy he did so. There are a lot of problems in our foreign missions and he should take note of some of the examples my colleague raised.

It always gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to speak for and represent the constituents of Edmonton--Strathcona but I do so with a heavy heart today dealing with the budget. The budget was a disappointment to Canadians across the country. They expected much more from the government and in fact got far less.

There is a host of areas about which my colleagues have spoken during their addresses to the budget speech, especially in the areas of security, tax relief and debt payment. There is a host of areas where we as Canadians were hoping to see some vision and leadership from the government but in fact there was absolutely none.

In my remarks today I will especially focus on a few issues when it comes to the Canadian currency and the symptoms of the Liberal government decade of drift. There is a lineage of missed opportunities, misplaced priorities and mismanaged resources which has led Canadians to the brink of recession. We are in a recession.

Another point I would like to focus on is the opportunity to review the ethical standards of the Liberal government and how it has led to the erosion of confidence in our national institution, a very serious problem that Canadians across the country talk to me about.

The government's statement of priorities in the Liberal 2001 budget, especially once we remove the glossy cover and flowery hyperbole, is a great disappointment. That disappointment is clearly illustrated in the value of our currency. On the open market a product is only as valuable as the demand for it. Demand for a currency is determined by the competitiveness of a nation's economy and its potential for growth.

Last week the Canadian dollar hit another all time low. I would extrapolate that international confidence in the Canadian economy has never been lower. Why should it not be? Canadians continue to be overtaxed and overregulated. Canada still has the highest personal income tax burden in the G-7.

The Liberals have missed an opportunity to get our fundamentals right and arrest the long term decline in our standard of living, productivity and currency. Canadian businesses that rely on American products and materials are literally paying the price for Liberal incompetence.

In the early 1960s the Canadian dollar slid in its competitiveness. This erosion in confidence raised the ire of Canadians who nicknamed the devalued loonie the Diefendollar. Concern over currency ultimately cost the Tories their majority.

One might ask how low did the dollar go. In fact it was 92 cents. Can we imagine? That created the outrage. Just last week the Canadian dollar hit an all time low of nearly 61 cents. This is an embarrassment.

Never has the world had such low regard for our currency and never have Canadians had more contempt and disdain for the government. What concerns me the most are the thousands of Canadians, almost 40%, who no longer care even to vote.

Let us imagine a ship in the ocean without the captain at the wheel. The ship is subject to the ebb and flow of the sea without being able to navigate a course of its own. This is the plight of the Canadian economy. The Prime Minister and his government will do the very least to keep Canadian's heads above water, all the while riding the economic tides south of the border.

Why is this? I believe the Prime Minister would rather be a good Liberal than a good Prime Minister and as such holds the interests of his party as his top priority. If he had the best interests of Canadians at heart he would have listened to the official opposition, business leaders and taxpayers before he tabled his budget. Let us make no mistake about it. This is his budget. The words may have come out of the finance minister's mouth but the ink on the page was the Prime Minister's.

Last fall the Canadian Alliance had a supply day motion which focused specifically on the budget. Our recommendations echoed the wants and needs of Canadian businesses and workers. The government did not heed these recommendations. Nor did it heed the scathing recommendations of the auditor general. The consequences of the Liberal decisions are reflected in the performance of the Canadian dollar.

The government opposite has continued to sleepwalk through the brink of a recession while bringing forward half-measures to try to deflect attention from the heaps of wasteful spending and unethical patronage. Governments are supposed to tap into the best and brightest minds of a nation, utilizing domestic ingenuity and innovation to improve the living standards of its citizens and increase its wealth and competitiveness.

The government opposite exports our best and brightest to the United States while it rewards the efforts of its political friends. History shows us that there is only so much Canadians will take before they demand a change.

We have seen this kind of government in Canada before. Prior to 1837 both Upper Canada and Lower Canada were plagued with patronage, nepotism and corruption. Only those with the closest ties to government prospered. The rest were shut out of decision making and full participation in their own country's administration.

During the Liberal decade of drift, the ugly face of nepotism has returned to Canadian government, this time stronger than ever. The Liberal Party of Canada has replaced the chateau clique and the family compact.

We need an electoral rebellion, a peaceful means for Canadians to take back the reins of power and implement responsible, accountable and ethical government. I believe the Canadian Alliance is the vehicle to institute these crucial reforms, fortified by policies and principles resolved and ratified by concerned grassroots Canadians who believe that politics and patronage are higher priorities for the government than national security, economic stability and health care sustainability. The new budget substantiates these beliefs.

The government opposite has been in office for over eight years. It stands and espouses the elimination of deficits and trade surpluses, but let us remember that the very fundamentals of our past economic prosperity such as free trade and debt reduction were policies against which the Liberals fought tooth and nail.

There has been a long held belief in politics that public officials need not only be free of unethical behaviour but the appearance of unethical behaviour. It is reprehensible that the Prime Minister rewarded the former public works minister with a cozy Scandinavian ambassadorship when he was embroiled in controversy. The Prime Minister owed it to the Canadian people to properly investigate the allegations to clear the air.

My colleagues will continue to cover the full range of the budget and its implications. As my colleagues continue to speak we will hear the disgust in their voices, disgust that has been given to them by Canadians across the country who have been completely disappointed, who still see the government without clear vision, and who still see our dollar continuing to erode and our taxes continuing to rise.

We suggested simple things in the budget like trying to eliminate capital tax to help stimulate business at a time of recession and paying down debt. The auditor general identified millions of dollars of waste in the way in which the government manages itself. Yet the finance minister could not find one red cent toward cutting that waste and putting some effective payment toward debt. This sends a terrible message, not only to Canadians but to international investors and money market managers who look at our country and say we do not have the fundamentals right.

It is clear we need to address these issues over the coming months and years. We know the government is not committed to putting the fundamentals right. It is only up to the official opposition in the House to raise these issues and convince the government to change its priorities and to change is principles. We will continue to do that.

I take this opportunity to state for the record my disgust with the actions of the government and give notice of my commitment to seek out and uncover the unethical and corrupt practices of the government.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the excellent speech by my Canadian Alliance colleague. There is indeed a great deal of waste within the federal government, because of its decision to encroach on areas that are not under its jurisdiction.

As the administrator of all provinces and territories, the federal government should manage general areas such as national defence and the post office, but not those areas in which the provinces are calling for full jurisdiction.

Last week in Vancouver, all of the provincial premiers and territorial leaders, were present, and for once Quebec was there. They were unanimous in demanding that the federal government put more funds into the health system.

Here in the House of Commons, there are members on both sides of the floor, whether in power or in opposition, who represent areas in all of the provinces and territories. We are all in touch with the needs of our communities and we know that they are calling for health care. The last time there were reforms in the provinces, all of them were forced to reform their health care system, whether in Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia. They all called for far more money for health care.

The provinces are in the best position to know what the needs are in their community as far as equipment, physician and nurse training and psychiatric and other care goes and to provide what is necessary to deliver good health care. This is why the provinces have carried out reforms and meet together regularly.

Yet we in this House, regardless of which side we are on, all have a connection to these premiers who are calling for federal government assistance. I think we have a duty today to do as the Canadian Alliance member has, and call upon the government, upon the cabinet, to pay more attention to the demands of the provincial premiers and territorial leaders.

April 30 is the deadline for the premiers' threat to withdraw from the social union, the one Premier Lucien Bouchard did not sign.

In closing, I would like to ask whether the hon. member is prepared to agree with me that those in the best position to know what is needed in the health field are the provincial premiers, because they are the ones who have administered health care within their provinces, and have done so with far less funding than before?

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Bloc Quebecois member for his question. I agree with him. This government does not have any priority; it is very wasteful in its spending.

As for health care, it is true that the government does not make it a priority to spend money for the benefit of the provinces.

I am in favour of one of the points raised by my Bloc colleague. As we see the health care debate erupting across the country, many provinces are discussing options on how they can take care of the health care problems that exist in the administration of health care in their provinces.

There has been widespread debate on how the provinces and the premiers will have to look for additional resources, seeing that much of those resources have been cut by the government over the years and that the amounts it has put back in past budgets have been very restricted.

On the one note, I agree with my colleague that we have to give the ability to the provinces to do the job effectively, to administer health care and to take care of the people in their provinces as effectively as they can. That requires flexibility.

In my home province there is an ongoing debate about the Mazankowski report that was tabled not too long ago. The province is looking at the options in that report and at how it can serve its public best. Given the crisis in health care and given the challenges the provincial governments are facing, we need to give them flexibility to do so.

At the same time it is a shame, as I said, that in the budget the government did not make transfers to the provinces a priority, especially in the area of health care. I dare say the crisis that is erupting across the country in various provinces clearly can be put on the shoulders of the government and its lack of attention to this file.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona and I share one thing in the ridings we represent: a fairly high urban aboriginal population.

Both the red book and the Speech from the Throne gave hope and optimism to aboriginal people that this would be the budget in which their historic grievances would finally be dealt with. Would the hon. member comment on shortcomings he might see in the aboriginal file in the current budget?

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will not go into great detail. Obviously this is an area of concern to us in the Alliance and to me in my riding, as the hon. member has identified. We look forward to the chance to debate the changes the government will propose and we hope that it actually will introduce some meaningful changes, something that we have not seen from the government.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Yukon.

I am delighted to join in this final debate on the budget. In the last couple of days I have been listening with interest to the members on this side speak about the important decisions the government had to make and, as my colleague has said, about the wisdom and thought that went into the budget.

I listened to my hon. colleague across the way talk about how Canadians were absolutely disappointed in the budget. I have to say that was certainly not the case in my riding. If anything, once again this budget demonstrated what the Liberals have come to be known for: a balanced approach that represents all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I would like to use my time to speak about the thing that is most important to me. Everyone has had their opportunity to speak about what they did not like about the budget or to highlight some of the very important things the budget undertakes. I would like to use my prebudget consultation report and compare it to the final budget.

My consultations were done after September 11. One of the things I am so very proud of is that I represent a riding that I truly believe is a microcosm for the country. It is one of the most culturally and economically diverse ridings in Canada. It is an urban riding, but I believe it provides a good pulse for what Canadians across the country are saying. It is home to new immigrants and refugees, people who have come to Canada to get away from intolerance, start a new life, build a new life and make Canada their home. It is home to many immigrants.

Madam Speaker, like you, I was born in Canada but I am first generation. My parents came to the country in 1951, fleeing from the war, having lived in a DP camp. They started a life here and I have been a beneficiary of their hard work. It was my parents, through their hard work, who gave me the ability to go to school, get an education and become a lawyer. Through their wisdom, their knowledge and their teaching, they gave me the courage to actually run to become a member of parliament and to come here and try to make a difference.

Let me talk a little more about my community. It contains many types of communities. It has many communities that are in transition, many that have been beneficiaries of HRDC programs such as the industrial adjustment program. There are wonderful success stories there. It also contains communities that have been revitalized. It contains people who are actually involved in their community. It is also very culturally rich. When I say culturally rich I mean that it is home to many artists, actors, writers, directors and producers. It is very vibrant that way. It has at least six business improvement area associations and also has the very first BIA that is based not on the retail industry but on technology. It is the very first one in Canada.

I would say that my community represents a lot of communities across Canada. Like those of many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, my community also contains people who are very committed to their communities, who love our country and who are very proud to be Canadian.

The results of my 2001 consultations were very different from those of any previous consultations that I have conducted. I have been doing these consultations every year since my election. The Standing Committee on Finance has encouraged all members to hold consultations, town hall meetings and community groups. It actually uses the reports that we send to the committee. They are tabled in the standing committee report on the budget.

I know that the opposition has talked a lot about what happened to paying down the debt, saying that there is nothing in here about paying down the debt. I have to say that in the past few years one of the top priorities was, and I stress the word was, paying down the debt. That was not the case this year. It was nowhere on the radar screen.

This year's top priority was preventing or at least ameliorating the effects of a possible recession and the global transition we are going through. The second priority, as a result of the tragic events of September 11, was increased spending for security measures, but the answer was that the measures must be strategic and we must be careful not to overreact. People in my community also said that the government must continue to help Canada's poorest people and, besides that, look beyond our own communities and think about reinvesting in and helping the lesser developed countries of this world.

Interestingly enough, my constituents, who came to a number of these consultations, also said that the government should not just spend but should look for new and innovative partnerships with the private sector. How can we increase private sector giving and make that sector part of the solution? They were looking for partnership. People understand that the government cannot do things alone. It is important to remember that this is what the Liberal Party is all about. It is about building partnerships with everyone in the community.

While debt repayment was still viewed as important in the long term, I want to stress that running surpluses to pay it down was clearly seen as much less of a priority at this time. As well, there were very few calls for a return to deficit financing.

My consultations resulted in four basic key recommendations. First, this government must invest in anti-recessionary programs. Second, it must enhance security measures, but strategically. Third, it must provide assistance for low income Canadians. Fourth, it must ensure continued funding for the arts and recognize just how important the arts are for the quality of life in Canada.

When the Minister of Finance addressed the House on December 10, the importance and the intent of this budget were made absolutely clear from the outset when he stated:

The focus of this budget, therefore, is dealing with this uncertainty and managing through this period of global weakness.

The finance minister went on to say that the budget also had four goals in mind. One was to ensure the necessary funding for security measures to deal not just with the threats we in Canada were facing, but the threats facing people around the world. The second was the recognition of the vital importance of an open Canada-U.S. border. The third was that we must continue to build for the future. The fourth was to provide Canadians with full and open accounting.

Immediately after the budget was tabled, I was caught off guard when my hon. colleague, the opposition critic, spoke to the budget. One thing that absolutely caught me off guard was that the member for Calgary Southeast first lambasted the government about funding for the CBC. We know where the opposition stands on the issue of the CBC. It does not see it as one of Canada's most important national cultural institutions. It does not see how it connects Canadians from sea to sea to sea or how it provides us with our identity. Especially after September 11 it is so important that we as Canadians have our own perspective, not the perspective of CNN and the Americans.

The arts was not cut this time in the budget and we are very lucky in that way, because usually when something is seen as floppy it is the first thing to go. This budget re-established the commitment made on May 2 by this government to continue reinvesting $560 million in the arts. This is an investment in our communities, our children, our identity, our innovation and our competitiveness.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I particularly would like to thank my colleague from Parkdale--High Park for her accurate and laudatory remarks about our position on funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which she seems to think is absolutely indispensable in holding together the country.

Perhaps she would like to take a look at the ratings of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in virtually any market of the country. In virtually every single market, commercial CBC television is in the basement in terms of viewership. What does that tell us? It tells us that private broadcasters attract more Canadians and do more to inform Canadians and that more Canadians choose to be informed by private broadcasters than by CBC. In my own city of Calgary, for instance, out of 100 points of market share I think the CBC has a market share of 8%, that is to say, 8 out of 100 Calgarians choose to watch the CBC.

I am all in favour of a national broadcaster, but we in our party believe that we can provide national, quality broadcasting more effectively by raising private funds to properly capitalize that kind of venture rather than leaving it to the discretion and generosity of the government on our behalf.

I would like to ask the hon. member this question. She lauded the $500 million in the budget for arts and culture investment and said it is essential to keeping the country together post-September 11. However, in the same budget the finance minister gave the defence department, when we net out the new mandates of that department, only a net $200 million a year for defence. Does the hon. member think that maintaining our national sovereignty is more likely to be affected by $500 million in culture spending than by $200 million in supporting our men and women in uniform? Is that the message she wants to send to our men and women in uniform, that producers at the CBC and television and film producers are more important than our fighting men and women? That is the message sent by the budget.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the first thing that comes to mind, and I have to say it again, is that we must read the entire budget.

It is always either/or. It is never about finding solutions to many complex problems and targeting and investing in the right areas.

The government does not invest in just one area. We invested in all those areas. We invested in security measures, in our men and women. We are also investing in small businesses. We are investing in helping poorer countries. We are investing in our disabled. We are investing in our children through different tax credits.

We are doing all the things the people in my riding wanted to ensure that we continue to build on making Canada a strong place. They wanted us to invest in anti-recessionary measures and to continue to target security measures, but carefully, while at the same time we provide funding for programs to ensure that intolerance does not become part of anything Canada stands for.

We have listened to Canadians, all Canadians. I stress that this is what the Liberals did. We do not represent one Canadian over the other. We represent all Canadians. Our finance minister, the Prime Minister and my colleagues here are responsible for a lot of the issues raised in the budget. I thank all of them. We were able to work in partnership, listen to Canadians and, I believe, find the budget that Canadians wanted.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for the member. First, let me say to her that she should not knock CNN, because without it the Prime Minister would not know what is going on in Afghanistan.

Second, the hon. member mentions CBC being so important to the fabric of the country. I agree with her and many others do.

The problem is that the people who run CBC do not care about rural Canada. They have cut the guts out of the programming to these areas. That is reflected in the polls, as the member just said. Its ratings are going right to the bottom because that is the type of service it is presently supplying to local service areas in rural Canada.

How can the member justify funding an agency that does the reverse of what it is supposed to do?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the important thing is that CBC has it in its mandate to ensure that it is the voice of Canadians and that it represents Canadians. One of the things it must address is regional issues.

I think the member's question is very timely. While we know that the CBC operates at arm's length and that its decisions are made pursuant to the Broadcasting Act by a board and its management, there is a very important thing that I want all Canadians to know. I want to welcome Canadians to join in on what the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is doing right now. It is conducting a study on the Broadcasting Act and the role of CBC. I encourage Canadians to make submissions as to what that role should be and how we can make it better.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to much of the debate, a lot of it in December and a lot of it now, and I would like to summarize the reasons for the success of the budget. I am sure that the fact the finance minister is brilliant will not be enough in itself to convince my hon. colleagues and I will have to support it with some facts, which I will do now.

It has been a very successful budget. It has not been raised in question period. There have been no major sustained problems with the budget. It has not been in the press. I will quickly go over some of the areas that have been covered.

Everyone expected it to be a security budget because of September 11. That was covered. Also it was very difficult before that time as there was a recession and less money was available to the government. A lot of people knew the money would just not be available for a lot of things I am sure all MPs would like to spend money on. I was very delighted that in that security funding $646 million went toward the border which is so important to us. As the member from the PC/DR coalition just said, 85% of our exports cross over that border. There had already been some problems before September 11 and it would be absolutely crucial for us if that broke down. I lobbied hard for that and I was very delighted to see that.

In relation to health care, we have heard many times in this debate that last fall the federal government and the provinces came to an agreement for the next five years, and the largest transfer in history in health care, $34.1 billion, was started. I think Canadians were especially delighted that just this week the provinces and territories agreed that the changes undergone in the Canadian health system at this time would still follow the five principles of the Canada Health Act.

The reason I do not think the criticism has been sustained is that of any of the speakers who have spoken on this issue, not one, and I requested several at least when I was in the House, has yet been able to mention how much money went to their province in the tax point transfer. The debate is not over and perhaps there will be an opposition member who can come up with that figure and show their grasp of the figures. However, for the country as a whole, just for a start, of the $34.1 billion, $18.3 billion was in cash and $15.8 billion was in tax points.

Some members mentioned tax cuts during the debate. Because of the severe restraints in the budget and in available cash and the requirement for defence and security spending, people were worried that we would not be able to maintain the planned tax cuts. The majority of them do not go to high income people. They were able to be maintained. There will be $17 billion this year, $20 billion next year and also a $2 billion deferral in small business tax.

Under these constraints of course, nothing could be paid this year on the national debt. However, $35.8 billion had been paid off in recent years. The amount out of every dollar going to the debt has dropped dramatically from 36 cents to 23 cents, the lowest it has been in 50 years.

Payroll taxes were brought up at the beginning of the debate as a possible weakness. The government has cut EI payments for the last five years. The Canada pension plan is the only item in payroll taxes that has gone up and that was agreed. Everyone knew there was not enough money there. The provinces and the actuaries came up with the amount of money, in agreement with the federal government.

I have asked the members of the Alliance several times whether they agree with the present financing of the Canada pension plan but there has been no answer. Some are in the building and perhaps they will answer this time.

I was proud that a number of things could still be funded in the budget in spite of all the constraints we had. There was a lack of revenues because of the recession, which was accelerated by the events of September 11 and the security requirements.

There is $680 million for affordable housing. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council is getting $36.5 million. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is getting $9.5 million. The National Research Council is getting $110 million. All of this is to keep us on the leading edge of the knowledge based economy, the innovation economy we find ourselves in.

For persons with disabilities who pursue higher education, there is $10 million. Support for skills learning and research is $1.1 billion. For Canadian universities there is $200 million.

In foreign aid there is the $500 million African fund and the $100 million increase to Afghanistan.

For the Canadian Institute for Health Information there is $95 million. There is $75 million for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

There are a number of initiatives on the environment. The green municipal enabling fund doubled, which I know my colleague from the PC/DR coalition would appreciate. The green municipal investment fund also doubled. That is another $100 million. For wind energy there is $260 million. For woodlot management there is $10 million. For renewable energy efficiency there is $5 million.

I was especially happy to see something I had lobbied for. I knew we were in tough times and I was happy that there would be money for those who could least help themselves, aboriginal children. There is $185 million in new money for them.

I will now turn to some of the solutions that were offered, mostly by the loyal opposition during the debate. I am delighted to have some of these on the record.

First of all, the loyal opposition and to some extent the PC/DR coalition were talking about $16.3 billion in grants and contributions that apparently were wasted. To quote exactly, it was said “$16.3 billion that was unmanaged and unexplainable” and the auditor general could fill in the Minister of Finance. I quote from Hansard , “She could fill him in on the $16.5 billion waste government could cut”.

The $16.5 billion is not the amount the auditor general found in some administrative procedures that need to be fixed, which is the purpose of the auditor general. The $16.5 billion is the entire government budget for grants and contributions. I am delighted those parties are on record as suggesting we cut all the grants and contributions, including all those to Indian and northern affairs, veterans affairs, the Canadian International Development Agency, Human Resources Development Canada, Health Canada, and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada.

They talk about increasing health and agriculture and then suggest we cut all the grants. That is on page 5 of the auditor general's report for those who would like to look it up.

The second suggestion from one of the members of the loyal opposition was to cut regional development. This is probably everything except Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. A basic tenet of the spirit of this nation is that those parts of the country that are in need are helped. I cannot believe the entire party would believe that but it was in its platform in the last election. It is just not in keeping with the nation to suggest that the money that goes to the prairies and the west or to Atlantic Canada should no longer exist, anything outside the big cities. It is great to have it on the record.

Time and time again when there was talk about wasteful spending those members were challenged. I challenged them and other people challenged them to list the programs they would cut. They would very seldom list them.

I have to give credit to an Alliance member who, when I asked that question yesterday, did list a few things. What was unfortunate was the ones he listed.

First of all was the $9 million in heritage. I am not sure about the rest of the country, but in my riding the cultural industries are a very important part of a very limited economy, the artists, the filmmakers and songwriters who take advantage of our beautiful environment. Last year I think 25 CDs were released in Yukon. They are a very important economic generator. There are our museums and our first nations culture. Heritage is an important expenditure.

The biggest item mentioned was the $1.45 billion in heating fuel rebates. The most upsetting comment was that “most of it was to people who did not need it”.

I have already criticized members of the PC/DR coalition for bringing this up and they never did it again. Even if there were a small number of administrative mistakes, $1.45 billion was given to those Canadians who are not in the highest income bracket. In the cold wintertime their expenses are the highest. What kind of ivory tower is someone in to say that most of it went to people who did not need it? That is just not acceptable in this nation.

Finally, a member from the loyal opposition suggested yesterday that infrastructure was in the budget and no one had asked for infrastructure. This is astonishing. First, all the regional rural areas of the nation are alienated by saying there will be no regional development and now all the cities, towns, villages and rural municipalities are alienated by saying that no one asked for infrastructure.

I had lunch today with the second vice-president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. He said it was great when the government put in the first infrastucture program, it was great when it put in the second infrastructure program, and they are happy to see that there is money in this budget.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Yukon for following the debates in this place so closely. He is one of the few members who is always here to listen to his colleagues. I only wish the ministers would take such an active interest in the debate on the budget. It is a convention in the British parliament that when the budget debate is being heard, the chancellor of the exchequer actually listens to the entire debate. I do not think that has ever happened in this place, at least in the last several years.

With respect to the points raised by the member for Yukon such as the heating rebate, it was not the Alliance but rather the auditor general who said that most of the cheques went to people who did not need them. Thousands went to people who were deceased or in prison. Tens of thousands of cheques went to people who exceeded the set income levels and to a lot of renters whose landlords pay their heating bills. I would like the member to address that.

In terms of regional development, members of the Alliance by and large represent a region of the country, the west. Perhaps in Yukon they feel differently but I can say that the people in western Canada do not believe that the best road to economic development and prosperity is government handouts and picking winners and losers in the private sector, but rather allowing the free market to do its job by getting government out of the way through lower taxes. We believe that should apply across the country. It is not discriminatory with respect to any region.

Finally, the member addressed the question of our proposed spending cuts. Yes, we do propose to reallocate roughly $6 billion or $7 billion from low and falling priority areas such as waste, corporate welfare, handouts to corporations, regional development schemes, money wasted in the Department of Canadian Heritage, et cetera. This money could then be reallocated to higher priorities like health care.

Does the member not agree that there are priorities such as health care and national defence which trump low and falling priorities such as corporate welfare and grants and subsidies to television and film producers?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have to return the compliment to my colleague because in the late night debates he is always the last one to speak, if I am not, and is a great participant here. I like to listen to his statements on the economy because he does a lot of research.

I hope someone will ask a question on the dollar because that is the part of my speech I did not get to.

In relation to the subsidy, the member referred to people such as renters, prisoners and people with incomes above a certain level. I am not certain what the level was but I am sure that most of the people above the poverty level certainly could use the rebate because of the very high price of heating last year. I do not think most renters in the country are that well off that it was not of benefit to them. Certainly prisoners in their lives do not have a good level of income. Obviously it was not supposed to go to them but they are a very low income group. I am certain that the small amount of money would far undershadow the very many poor people who really needed it.

In relation to the member's comments about grants in the west, I am curious. Does this mean he would close western diversification?

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Yes.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

That is good for the record too.

Finally I would tend to agree with the member that the fundamentals of the economy such as taxes, the debt, the innovation agenda, the learning agenda, the poor, and aboriginal children are all very important for a solid economy. That is why I emphasized those areas more than the other parts of my speech.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

I would also like to say a few words about the dollar. Far more important than the artificial level of the dollar is the quality of life we have. I was in Washington on September 11. The taxi driver told me not to go out of my hotel room at night. I left this place at 2 a.m. this morning. I am not afraid to do that in Canada.

According to newspapers Edmonton is the best city in the world today in which to invest. We live in a great country where we are not afraid to go outside, we have universal access to health care, we can give $16 billion in programs for people, and we can given $185 million to aboriginal children. If Canada is the best country in the world in which to live, then I do not care about the level of the dollar.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Medicine Hat. I agree with all of those things that make Canada such a wonderful place to live but I still appreciate a dollar that is worth more than 62 cents.

I will not go into all of the issues that my colleagues have been over and over in the four days of debate on the budget because they have done a good job of exposing the weaknesses in this budget. However, I do want to talk about a couple of things from the perspective of my position as official opposition natural resources critic. There were issues relating to the area of natural resources that were not in the budget but should have been.

I was disappointed that the government did not move to address the truly unfair system of corporate taxation that is discriminatory against the mining and oil and gas industries. Currently the mining and oil and gas industries pay a 28% corporate tax rate whereas, as part of the Liberal government's five year $100 billion tax reduction plan, all other corporations are enjoying a phased in reduction in corporate tax rates to 21%. According to the budget figures released last year by the finance minister the cumulative corporate savings would amount to $10.1 billion by 2004 when the rates of other businesses are lowered to 21%.

Canada is the third largest producer of natural gas in the world and the 13th largest producer of crude oil. The oil and gas trade exports account for half of Canada's trade balance. The $42 billion oil industry, which employs more than 525,000 Canadians, pays an average of $2.5 billion in annual federal income taxes. In 2000 the industry invested $23 billion in exploration and development, often with a lead time of up to five years before it could expect any return. The oil industry is the largest single private sector investor in Canada.

The mining industry is one of the few Canadian industries that operates in all provinces and territories. New investment will bring significant economic benefits to all mineral producing regions and urban centres across the nation. In 2000 the mining and mineral processing industry contributed $28 billion to Canada's GDP. Direct employment by the industry exceeds 400,000 and Canada is one of the world's largest exporters of minerals and mineral products. In 2000 exports amounted to $49 billion representing 13% of total exports.

In 2001 the mining and oil and gas extraction industries, which includes the oil sands mining, was forecast to invest more than $30 billion on construction machinery and equipment representing roughly 16% of forecast capital investment in Canada. These two industries bring massive investment, jobs and secondary benefits to Canadians. It is in our best interest to ensure the health of the industries. However, the Liberals made their priorities clear in the last budget by not including the mining and oil industries in the group eligible for the reduced corporate tax rate.

I urge the government to remember the fable of the goose that laid the golden egg. A villager and his wife had a goose that laid a golden egg every day. They supposed that the goose had some great lump of gold in its insides to produce the eggs and in order to get the gold, they killed it. Having done so they found to their surprise that the goose was no different from other geese. The foolish pair, hoping to become rich, deprived themselves all at once of the gain of which they were so assured day by day. There is a parody there to what the Liberal government has done and is doing to the natural resource industries over time.

A lower tax rate in the oil and gas industry alone would cost the federal treasury about $400 million by the end of 2004. The government claims that due to the recent economic turndown, it is unable to cut taxes and forego that kind of revenue. However, the government is well known for hoarding taxes and to finance extra spending on the efforts of two key industries in Canada while all other corporations enjoy a lower tax rate. That is plainly discriminatory.

If one asks the government its rationale behind the decision one would no doubt hear that the finance department believes that energy companies get tax breaks not available to other economic sectors and that these breaks effectively bring the tax rate of the resource sector down to 21%.

What is conveniently not mentioned is that while it is true that energy companies have a 100% deduction for eligible exploration and development expenses, accelerated write-offs for certain capital assets and accelerated capital cost allowance and resource allowance, these industries face massive initial capital investments with no guarantee of return, and often the return is not seen for extremely long periods of time.

Without other tax benefits companies could not afford to invest in projects such as the Athabasca oil sands, Hibernia and other natural resource projects. These eventually bring billions of dollars to both investors and the government. The resource allowance is simply a proxy for the royalties that companies pay to the provincial governments. It is a business cost not a special tax treatment.

I must admit that I find it curious that the finance minister claims there is simply no room in his budget to give resource industries a break yet he was able to find $260 million with which to start the government's wind energy initiative. I cannot help but wonder if all that hot air contributes to the wind program.

Recently in Fort McMurray the finance minister pledged that if the current system is found to be unfair it would be changed. I call on the finance minister to follow up on his promise and do the right thing. The truth is that without a more stable and fair corporate tax system investors in the resource industries will be scared away. In this of time of increased U.S. demand for reliable energy sources, the government owes it to Canadian resource companies to ensure their competitiveness and survival in Canada and worldwide.

I turn my focus now to the government's climate change plans. Canada is considering one of the most expensive undertakings since World War II, the Kyoto protocol. Yet, this huge commitment is not seriously considered in the most recent budget. The Liberal government is considering ratifying the protocol either by the G-8 meeting in Kananaskis in June or at the meeting in Johannesburg in September 2002.

Business and environmental groups have been raising their voices in protest in the last few months. They are saying that the government has no idea how to achieve its target eight years before we are supposed to have our greenhouse emissions down to 6% below 1990 levels. The commissioner of the environment indicated that at the moment we are 17% over 1990 levels.

Lately the government has been travelling across the country asking businesses to tell it how it should meet its own promises under the Kyoto protocol. It is asking others to do the work for it.

While the environment minister says over and over that implementing Kyoto will cost between 0.1% and 1% of Canada's GDP per year. Added up we are looking at between 3% and 8% GDP loss by 2010. A 4% GDP loss is approximately $40 billion or $1,100 per person. It is a huge expense for combating a problem for which we still do not have a real solution. The government often talks of all the health benefits of reducing greenhouse gases but atmospheric carbon dioxide has never been considered a health risk.

We want to see a more aggressive action on air pollutants that have been demonstrated to have a negative affect on human health, such as air particles and ozone, but these should be targeted separately and not together with carbon dioxide. Referring to carbon dioxide and water vapour as atmospheric pollution is dishonest and smacks of a hidden agenda.

If the government is so serious about ratifying Kyoto why were the costs of implementing Kyoto not taken into consideration? Where are the numbers that say Canada will lose up to 1% of its GDP next year by implementing Kyoto? Where are the considerations of economic leakage where certain sectors that are heavily hit by regulations under Kyoto leave Canada and go to other countries such as the U.S. and Mexico where they are not under the same constraints? The government will continue to say it will not impose a carbon tax but the emissions permits or carbon caps that it is considering are just a carbon tax by another name.

Some sectors that produce more greenhouse gases such as the energy sector will be hit harder than others. They will be constrained to pay more for the right to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Is this tax fairness? Will this keep these businesses in Canada or will it drive these companies out of Canada to other countries not bound by Kyoto, such as the United States, which is refusing to ratify, citing the economic damage the agreement will cause?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. I am reluctant to interrupt but we are in the last hour of this debate and the member's time has lapsed. Hopefully during the question and comment period he might have an opportunity to wrap up his intervention.